.....I don't know how to go about rooting out the idea that it is 'me' in control and also, where I go from my current level of realisation?

I don't think it's something that you want to "root out". It comes back to mindfulness. Simply observe the rising and passing away of thoughts. If you can maintain the continuity of mindfulness, then the true nature of thoughts will reveal themselves. Then you will come to the realization that they are simply impersonal processes that rise and pass away.

So I've been thinking about whether my thoughts are 'me' and have realised that they are impersonal and that the same goes for my feelings. My thoughts and feelings are beyond my control so there's no logic to saying "I thought of this idea" or "this is my idea" because in reality I did not choose to think or feel that way.

So I know all this in theory but I don't know how to go about rooting out the idea that it is 'me' in control and also, where I go from my current level of realisation?

This is a great question. It seems like once a person has intellectual understanding and acceptance, its a matter of helping to nurture oneself from an intellectual understanding into an intuitive understanding of the nature of non-self.

The goal of rooting out the "you" or the "self" likely needs to come from multiple different angles, which is probably a gradual process for most.

For myself, its important to see both the goal and the process towards reaching this understanding as the same thing: striving for awareness.

Contemplations of the body (mindfulness of breathing, postures, positions, the parts, the 4 elements) could add to your contemplations of feelings and mind-objects. They might help cultivate a detached and balanced view of the body as the self.

As one lets go of the attachment of seeing the body as self, it would then beg the question "whose body is this?"

This would tie-in to the questions you've already asked (similar to "whose feelings are these?" and "whose thoughts/mental events are these?")

The process of asking these questions and reflecting on the answers may hopefully aid the process of detachment from the self.

Also, deep concentration meditations help me greatly to slow down the pace of feelings and thoughts, which gives a closer look at pure consciousness as it is... This greatly helps to separate the idea that body, feelings, and mind are the self. Jhana is great if you have it, but its not necessarily needed to gain benefits from one-pointed concentration meditation IMHO.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

So I've been thinking about whether my thoughts are 'me' and have realised that they are impersonal and that the same goes for my feelings. My thoughts and feelings are beyond my control so there's no logic to saying "I thought of this idea" or "this is my idea" because in reality I did not choose to think or feel that way.

So I know all this in theory but I don't know how to go about rooting out the idea that it is 'me' in control and also, where I go from my current level of realisation?

This is a great question. It seems like once a person has intellectual understanding and acceptance, its a matter of helping to nurture oneself from an intellectual understanding into an intuitive understanding of the nature of non-self.

The goal of rooting out the "you" or the "self" likely needs to come from multiple different angles, which is probably a gradual process for most.

The importance of Right View can't be underestimated. If we just pursue various practices without foundation, we get a mixture of results. Nothing is ever truly clear. The Buddha's teaching is not about 'rooting out the idea of self'. He never posited a self to be rooted out. Seeing things the way they are is not rooting out a self. It is seeing that there is not a self, just a chain of ideas that 'seem' to be a self but when inspected, have no permanence. Why root out something that is not permanent? It's very nature is not established. It's a deception that gets repeated over and over. Seeing this, disenchantment begins to rise up. This is a wisdom factor that the teaching says leads to dispassion, and then release. Release from what? Deception, which is the idea of self, attachment/clinging, and becoming. To me, this all begins with Right View. Taking up practices without really understanding what you are doing turns into a practice of becoming, which is not what the Buddha taught. This is probably not easy to understand for most people, or maybe it took me longer than most.

So I've been thinking about whether my thoughts are 'me' and have realised that they are impersonal and that the same goes for my feelings. My thoughts and feelings are beyond my control so there's no logic to saying "I thought of this idea" or "this is my idea" because in reality I did not choose to think or feel that way.

So I know all this in theory but I don't know how to go about rooting out the idea that it is 'me' in control and also, where I go from my current level of realisation?

This is a great question. It seems like once a person has intellectual understanding and acceptance, its a matter of helping to nurture oneself from an intellectual understanding into an intuitive understanding of the nature of non-self.

The goal of rooting out the "you" or the "self" likely needs to come from multiple different angles, which is probably a gradual process for most.

The importance of Right View can't be underestimated. If we just pursue various practices without foundation, we get a mixture of results. Nothing is ever truly clear. The Buddha's teaching is not about 'rooting out the idea of self'. He never posited a self to be rooted out. Seeing things the way they are is not rooting out a self. It is seeing that there is not a self, just a chain of ideas that 'seem' to be a self but when inspected, have no permanence. Why root out something that is not permanent? It's very nature is not established. It's a deception that gets repeated over and over. Seeing this, disenchantment begins to rise up. This is a wisdom factor that the teaching says leads to dispassion, and then release. Release from what? Deception, which is the idea of self, attachment/clinging, and becoming. To me, this all begins with Right View. Taking up practices without really understanding what you are doing turns into a practice of becoming, which is not what the Buddha taught. This is probably not easy to understand for most people, or maybe it took me longer than most.

Sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, but I am just unclear if you were quoting me to agree or disagree with what I said? Did you think I was saying "root out the self"? Because I don't think I said that.

I was however referring to guiding oneself gradually through insight towards the realization of no self... Anatta.

Anatta, being one of the three marks of existence of all beings.

As we guide ourselves to comprehend non-self, impermanence, and the reality of suffering, we begin to free ourselves.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

This is a great question. It seems like once a person has intellectual understanding and acceptance, its a matter of helping to nurture oneself from an intellectual understanding into an intuitive understanding of the nature of non-self.

The goal of rooting out the "you" or the "self" likely needs to come from multiple different angles, which is probably a gradual process for most.

The importance of Right View can't be underestimated. If we just pursue various practices without foundation, we get a mixture of results. Nothing is ever truly clear. The Buddha's teaching is not about 'rooting out the idea of self'. He never posited a self to be rooted out. Seeing things the way they are is not rooting out a self. It is seeing that there is not a self, just a chain of ideas that 'seem' to be a self but when inspected, have no permanence. Why root out something that is not permanent? It's very nature is not established. It's a deception that gets repeated over and over. Seeing this, disenchantment begins to rise up. This is a wisdom factor that the teaching says leads to dispassion, and then release. Release from what? Deception, which is the idea of self, attachment/clinging, and becoming. To me, this all begins with Right View. Taking up practices without really understanding what you are doing turns into a practice of becoming, which is not what the Buddha taught. This is probably not easy to understand for most people, or maybe it took me longer than most.

Sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, but I am just unclear if you were quoting me to agree or disagree with what I said? Did you think I was saying "root out the self"? Because I don't think I said that.

I was however referring to guiding oneself gradually through insight towards the realization of no self... Anatta.

Anatta, being one of the three marks of existence of all beings.

As we guide ourselves to comprehend non-self, impermanence, and the reality of suffering, we begin to free ourselves.

You did say 'the goal of rooting out the 'you' or the 'self', likely needs to come from multiple angles...........'
I was referring this goal back to what the Buddha actually taught about seeing things the way they are which is not the same as 'rooting out' anything or establishing a 'self'.

When you practice satipatthana (mindfulness practice), you are not instructed to root out anything. You are instructed to be mindful of 4 areas, body, feeling, mind, and mind objects, the 4 foundations. You are not instructed to do anything about or to them in the satipatthana sutta. Insight rises because of the right conditions. You don't have to force or control your experience towards anything. I think it's important to get the foundation of this solidly in place, then insight(wisdom) can lead to its natural conclusion.

The importance of Right View can't be underestimated. If we just pursue various practices without foundation, we get a mixture of results. Nothing is ever truly clear. The Buddha's teaching is not about 'rooting out the idea of self'. He never posited a self to be rooted out. Seeing things the way they are is not rooting out a self. It is seeing that there is not a self, just a chain of ideas that 'seem' to be a self but when inspected, have no permanence. Why root out something that is not permanent? It's very nature is not established. It's a deception that gets repeated over and over. Seeing this, disenchantment begins to rise up. This is a wisdom factor that the teaching says leads to dispassion, and then release. Release from what? Deception, which is the idea of self, attachment/clinging, and becoming. To me, this all begins with Right View. Taking up practices without really understanding what you are doing turns into a practice of becoming, which is not what the Buddha taught. This is probably not easy to understand for most people, or maybe it took me longer than most.

Sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, but I am just unclear if you were quoting me to agree or disagree with what I said? Did you think I was saying "root out the self"? Because I don't think I said that.

I was however referring to guiding oneself gradually through insight towards the realization of no self... Anatta.

Anatta, being one of the three marks of existence of all beings.

As we guide ourselves to comprehend non-self, impermanence, and the reality of suffering, we begin to free ourselves.

You did say 'the goal of rooting out the 'you' or the 'self', likely needs to come from multiple angles...........'
I was referring this goal back to what the Buddha actually taught about seeing things the way they are which is not the same as 'rooting out' anything or establishing a 'self'.

When you practice satipatthana (mindfulness practice), you are not instructed to root out anything. You are instructed to be mindful of 4 areas, body, feeling, mind, and mind objects, the 4 foundations. You are not instructed to do anything about or to them in the satipatthana sutta. Insight rises because of the right conditions. You don't have to force or control your experience towards anything. I think it's important to get the foundation of this solidly in place, then insight(wisdom) can lead to its natural conclusion.

If both the path and the practice are awareness of reality, and the reality is one of non self, then I don't see how anything I said violates this. I think what you are pointing out is a case of semantics because you feel that I was advocating an active process of discovering non-self, whereas you feel it should be a passive process?

If this is an important distinction for you, I'm not sure what you think of:
"teaching on anatta aims to completely remove all these identifications and the corresponding attachments to a sense of self"
-Satipatthana The Direct Path to Realization, Analayo, pg. 210.

In my mind, a sense of self is a defilement of the mind, and efforts to destroy defilements of the mind are part of the path. If one can eliminate desire/craving for existence of self, one eliminates suffering.

"Give up the aggregates, for none of the is truly your own" is a quote by Buddha which I believe also pertains to the active process of giving up the illusion of self.

Anyways I don't think this is going anywhere, I was trying to provide what insight I could to the OP but getting pulled into an intellectual debate on semantics has no attraction to me, I'd rather meditate. I mean no ill will when I say that this kind of stuff is why I don't post very often.

Much Metta to you

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

“Buddha is stating that he teaches that a living being is not a self but a mere conglomeration of factors, material and mental events, linked together in a process that is inherently dukkha, and that Nibbāna, the cessation of suffering, is not the annihilation of a being but the termination of that same unsatisfactory process. This statement should be read in conjunction with SN 12:15/ii.17, where the Buddha says that one with right view, who has discarded all doctrines of a self, sees that whatever arises is only dukkha arising, and whatever ceases is only dukkha ceasing.”

I don't think it's something that you want to "root out". It comes back to mindfulness. Simply observe the rising and passing away of thoughts. If you can maintain the continuity of mindfulness, then the true nature of thoughts will reveal themselves. Then you will come to the realization that they are simply impersonal processes that rise and pass away.

I can observe the transience and conditionality of thoughts, but I'd be interested to know how you go about realising the "impersonal" aspect of thoughts, practically speaking.

Sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, but I am just unclear if you were quoting me to agree or disagree with what I said? Did you think I was saying "root out the self"? Because I don't think I said that.

I was however referring to guiding oneself gradually through insight towards the realization of no self... Anatta.

Anatta, being one of the three marks of existence of all beings.

As we guide ourselves to comprehend non-self, impermanence, and the reality of suffering, we begin to free ourselves.

You did say 'the goal of rooting out the 'you' or the 'self', likely needs to come from multiple angles...........'
I was referring this goal back to what the Buddha actually taught about seeing things the way they are which is not the same as 'rooting out' anything or establishing a 'self'.

When you practice satipatthana (mindfulness practice), you are not instructed to root out anything. You are instructed to be mindful of 4 areas, body, feeling, mind, and mind objects, the 4 foundations. You are not instructed to do anything about or to them in the satipatthana sutta. Insight rises because of the right conditions. You don't have to force or control your experience towards anything. I think it's important to get the foundation of this solidly in place, then insight(wisdom) can lead to its natural conclusion.

If both the path and the practice are awareness of reality, and the reality is one of non self, then I don't see how anything I said violates this. I think what you are pointing out is a case of semantics because you feel that I was advocating an active process of discovering non-self, whereas you feel it should be a passive process?

If this is an important distinction for you, I'm not sure what you think of:
"teaching on anatta aims to completely remove all these identifications and the corresponding attachments to a sense of self"
-Satipatthana The Direct Path to Realization, Analayo, pg. 210.

In my mind, a sense of self is a defilement of the mind, and efforts to destroy defilements of the mind are part of the path. If one can eliminate desire/craving for existence of self, one eliminates suffering.

"Give up the aggregates, for none of the is truly your own" is a quote by Buddha which I believe also pertains to the active process of giving up the illusion of self.

Anyways I don't think this is going anywhere, I was trying to provide what insight I could to the OP but getting pulled into an intellectual debate on semantics has no attraction to me, I'd rather meditate. I mean no ill will when I say that this kind of stuff is why I don't post very often.

Much Metta to you

Perhaps it's semantics, perhaps not. I don't subscribe to 'destroying', 'eliminating' defilements like desire/craving/becoming/ being. I do subscribe to nibbida, the disenchantment, viraga, the dispassion, towards all phenomena, experience which leads to release from all this. If my point is either not agreed to or subscribed to, that's okay. But, that is sort of where I'm at. Btw, I didn't think you meant any ill will so not to worry.

They are not 'yours'. The habit of identification with them as a sign that there is a central agent that they belong to is revealed as false.

OK, but this seems like an intellectual understanding. How does one actually observe this non-ownership, practically speaking?

In your practice of mindfulness, the insight rises that these are only thoughts, only feelings. That there is no one really behind the door. That ownership is not different than the thoughts and feelings. An unmistakable conviction takes place. You just know it.

In your practice of mindfulness, the insight rises that these are only thoughts, only feelings. That there is no one really behind the door. That ownership is not different than the thoughts and feelings. An unmistakable conviction takes place. You just know it.

How do you know this is a correct insight? How can you know there isn't someone "behind the door"? That is, how can you be certain that any "insight" you get isn't false? You may think you are certain there is no one "behind the door", but you might be wrong. There are many cases of Christians "having the insight" that there is a God, when they are "born again" they have an "unmistakable conviction" that God is with them. Buddhists, denyying the existence of God, would have to to say they have a false insight, and their "unmistakable" conviction is mistaken.

I think the key is to just to carry on with your mindfulness exercises and not bother yourself with questions like, "Is there a self or not?" As with other Buddhist imponderables (karma, rebirth...) there is no final determination you can make... unless you become a fully enlightened one... if there is such a thing...

In your practice of mindfulness, the insight rises that these are only thoughts, only feelings. That there is no one really behind the door. That ownership is not different than the thoughts and feelings. An unmistakable conviction takes place. You just know it.

How do you know this is a correct insight? How can you know there isn't someone "behind the door"? That is, how can you be certain that any "insight" you get isn't false? You may think you are certain there is no one "behind the door", but you might be wrong. There are many cases of Christians "having the insight" that there is a God, when they are "born again" they have an "unmistakable conviction" that God is with them. Buddhists, denyying the existence of God, would have to to say they have a false insight, and their "unmistakable" conviction is mistaken.

I think the key is to just to carry on with your mindfulness exercises and not bother yourself with questions like, "Is there a self or not?" As with other Buddhist imponderables (karma, rebirth...) there is no final determination you can make... unless you become a fully enlightened one... if there is such a thing...

I don't pose this question to myself because it is quite obvious to me that there is no one there apart from these thoughts. It also happens to be in line with the Dhamma. This insight took place way before I was privy to the Buddhist teachings. You don't have to be a Buddhist to know this. In fact, neuro-scientists and researchers have come to the same conclusion. The sense of self is fabricated. Christians also deny that self exists. If a Christian has an experience that god is with them, I have no problem with that. God in the true sense maybe other than what you think it is. Many interpretations exist. Some are poetic. It reminds me of the famous quote of Meister Eckart, 'the Kingdom of Heaven is only for the thoroughly dead.'

Carrying on with one's practice is essential, but not-self is not imponderable, it is essential, too, if you practice satipatthana. Sotapanna, stream enterer, is about this realization. It is not full enlightenment, but there is a change. Certain fetters disappear. Are you familiar with this?

Vacchagotta the wanderer asked the Buddha, ""Do I have a self?" The Buddha remained silent; trying to answer this question leads to confusion and destroys peace of mind. Thanissaro says “there is no self” is a fake Buddhist quote, a statement never made or implied in the suttas. Thanissaro suggests a not-self strategy, not trying to see “no self” directly. On identifying with something stressful, remind yourself that it’s not part of yourself. This helps you let go of it, and stops bad thoughts proliferating.

Attempted answers like “I have no self” induce a “thicket of views, a writhing of views, a contortion of views” that hinder awakening (Majjhima Nikaya 2). The Buddha warned us not to enter these debates (Sutta Nipata 4.8).

On identifying with anything stressful and inconstant, remind yourself that it’s not-self, i.e., not worth considering as part of yourself. (SN 22.59). This helps you let go of it. Do this thoroughly and it can lead to awakening. (MN 135).

Some selfing is useful: developing a self that’s heedful and responsible, confident in managing the practice (Anguttara Nikaya 4.159). Apply the perception of not-self to anything that would pull you astray. Finally, apply that perception to the path itself. On the path, regard even the deathless as not-self (AN 9.36).

I don't think it's something that you want to "root out". It comes back to mindfulness. Simply observe the rising and passing away of thoughts. If you can maintain the continuity of mindfulness, then the true nature of thoughts will reveal themselves. Then you will come to the realization that they are simply impersonal processes that rise and pass away.

I can observe the transience and conditionality of thoughts, but I'd be interested to know how you go about realising the "impersonal" aspect of thoughts, practically speaking.

Hi Spiny Norman and all,
I hope you guys don't mind that I chime in here to share some ideas, because I have been very silent for some time...
As it happens I am working on seeing the "impersonal" aspects of thoughts too lately and practically speaking I am doing so by observing the sense doors and their respective objects in general giving special attention to the their impersonal aspect, that is being not-self, by realizing that I have no power, no control over the sense doors nor their respective objects.

The personal aspect of thoughts, (this applies to any of the other senses) comes from the idea of a person or personality which originates from the notion of "having control". This notion of "being in charge" in some way in turn originates from clinging to the sense sphere and/or their objects, appropriating them, making them mine and forming the idea of me. The conglomeration of this process forms the person or personality.

So practically speaking and from my personal point of view I see thoughts and ideas being objects of the mind not arising in a void but in a very specific setting, which is the mind or the mind-sphere. Thoughts don't arise "in me" or "in my brain" nor do I have the thoughts. They are known always from a certain point of view, which is consciousness, you could also say discovered by consciousness. This certain point of view also arises along with its own content and changes in accordance with it. By observing this impermanent "specific setting" in which thoughts come and go I see that no matter what or how I wish that this "specific setting" may stay as it is or changes according to my actual liking it does not obey, I cannot control conscious experience. Instead I constantly notice that the conscious experience of the mind forms and is formed by its content and vice versa. Focusing on the content of the mind I also noticed that I have no direct control of the mind-objects arising and passing away either. Somehow I've got the impression that this was easier to realize right from the beginning.

The more I realize that I am not in charge, that I have no control, the more the process of dependent origination (here I'm not speaking of the 12-links but more of formations forming formations) becomes apparent and the notion of personality begins to fade away, because if it was me that is thinking my thoughts than I should have at least some kind of control over this process and I, my personality, should be there permanently to some extent in order to still be identifiable as my self within this process as a whole, but within this all there is nothing to be found that complies with the requirements for being my self and so the whole thing disintegrates furthermore and reveals its impersonality bit by bit.

For me it's not like there is no me anymore it's more like that what I used to experience as myself becomes "perforated" or "fragmented" and presents itself not as a complete whole unit anymore but as a net of entangled heaps of particular impersonal phenomena.

Well, I hope you guys can get the gist of this...

best wishes, acinteyyo

Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.